Will’s comment > Likes and Comments

First of all, I'm not 'annoyed'.
Secondly, the reason BOTH children address the father by his first name is simply because that is the way the author addressed her father when she grew up. Unless we delve into her childhood, we are not sure why. The reason you give is merely your own interpretation, which is equally valid as, but not more valid than, my own interpretation. There no wrong or right here.

A six year old is not an adult. I think that's intuitive, and not subject to debate.

It is also clear that Atticus took little interest in his children, and only interacted with them in reaction to their own advances to him. This is also the opinion of Aunty Alexandra, (i.e. he is neglecting his children) a character whom the author also portrays as someone with integrity despite her rigid outlook.

Of course the legal system was flawed in the 1930's. I appreciated Ms Lee's account of this as I wrote: "in a court of law where the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the system fails and an innocent man is condemned. And this of course is an important point to bring out, accurately reflecting the nature of racism at that time.
Fine, I applaud Ms Lee."

However, I disagree with you that it has improved much. It is as flawed as ever. (less)

You are not annoyed? And yet your third sentence starts "I found that annoying..."

There is no right and wrong here, and yet you said that Atticus was "a failure" at raising his own kids.

A six year old child is not an adult, but that does not mean that can't be treated like one.

The current legal system is as flawed as it was in the 1930s?

I think your prejudices are showing far more than any bones you have to pick with Harper Lee.

I have to agree with Will here. And even if you do think Atticus is a bad father (which is a different debate), is his title really the biggest issue? There are bad relationships that use the name Father and good ones that use names. It's unrelated.